Public Opinion and Political Influence

Carllene Brooks
May 11, 2016
Professor Murdaco
Politics


Task: Summarize Lecture


        In this week's lecture, we were asked to look at and summarize two different articles relating to public opinion and political influence. In both Sheldon Wolin's " Inverted Totalitarianism" and in Arthur Schlesinger's " The Politics of Hope" and "Liberalism in America" we see the common idea on how the government has evolved in recent decades as well as how we perceive the idea of inverted totalitarianism.
       To begin with, the term Inverted Totalitarianism was coined by Wolin and it is commonly used to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. According to Wolin he believes that there are 3 main points in which inverted totalitarianism is the inverted form of classical totalitarianism. To summarize the main idea of these three points; it seems that he derives his ideas from prior experiences that have occurred within the history of America. His main goal is to shed light on how we have evolved from hard times; for example Wolin references Nazi Germany and the era when JFK was in office. Wolin's coined term aims for the mass of the populace to be in a persistent state of political apathy. According to www.commondreams.org, inverted totalitarianism pays outward featly to the facade of electoral politics, the Constitution, civil liberties, and freedom of the press. In my opinion, I believe that this statement means that with this term it will help people and possibly the public to better understand the political world. To end on the thoughts of Wolin, I have come across an interview that was conducted with him last year. In this interview he states that " Inverted Totalitarianism constantly powers upwards. It is the antithesis of constitutional power. It is designed to create instability to keep a citizenry off balance and passive. " This means that by having this system of totalitarianism , it will further change the things are being run and how decisions are being made.
     Meanwhile in Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr's Politics of Hope, he seems to elaborate on some of Kennedy's ideas. The one point I would like to emphasize is a statement that he made in his book. He mentions that " Liberal thinkers should learn from history and look to the future." This is a very powerful statement because it means that we shouldn't base our knowledge and ideas from what we learn in the present day. Out history is what makes us who we are as well as shows us how the world and how the political views have drastically changed throughout our time. By looking into the future we can see that the changes and new innovations that are brought our way can truly make a difference in the political world.

The Judiciary

Carllene Brooks
April 28, 2016
Professor Murdaco
Poiltics




Task: Summarize this weeks'  lecture

            Rudyard Kipling once said " If history were taught in the form of stores, it would never be forgotten". This quote suggests that if history were taught more effectively in school then people would never forget it and would also have knowledge in that area. Stores change frequently( they either get knocked down or rebuilt) as well as history.  In this weeks' lecture,  we were asked to look at the many different cases that were turning points in history. However the three cases that I want to speak briefly about are Brown vs. Board of Ed( 1954), Loving vs. Virginia( 1967), and Roe vs. Wade ( 1973). All three of these cases have made significant changes in our nation as well as tie into today's current issues that we are facing.
       Without delay, Brown vs. Board of education was one of my favorite cases. I say this because it gave all children of all races the equal opportunity for the same education. This case ended legal segregation in all public schools. As well as highlighted the changes in both national and social policy. Prior to gaining a better understanding of this case, I never really understood why we were separated due to the color of our skin. At the end of the day we are all human beings, we all deserve the right to equality, as well as the right to the same educational and job practices. I understand that during these times the white race was the " superior race" and we were frowned upon by them. They figured that since they were the superiors, they deserved the best education tools, the best job opportunities, as well as the right to make the decisions. According to PBS. org, the case came about because a little girl's parents( African American) decided to sue because they wanted her to attend an al white school in her neighborhood. ( I think this ties to the Ruby Bridges story). Apparently the decision overturned the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision( 1896). This law/ case allowed state- sponsored segregation, apply to public education.
       Meanwhile, a few years later, another case that caught the nation by storm was the Loving vs. Virginia case ( 1967). This case in my opinion was the start of having two races come together to fight for what they wanted as well as fight for their love. The background for this case prohibited  interracial marriage. Mildred( black) and Richard Loving ( white) were both sentenced to a year in the Virginia jail because of their marriage. How can you punish two people for loving one another; regardless of their skin color they shouldn't be held accountable or punished for their union. Their marriage violated the states' anti- miscegenation law/code. The Supreme Court determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional and they decided to end all race- based legal restrictions on marriage in the U.S. One text to world connection that can be made from this piece of history is the recent decision by the courts to legalize same sex marriage in some states. History does indeed repeat itself.
        Finally, the last case that I want to speak about is Roe vs. Wade. The main idea of this case were the issues surrounding abortion. This case is similar to Donald Trump's view on the topic. According to the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment; it extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion . This case definitely reshaped national politics which divides much of the United States into pro- choice and pro- life camps.
   In closing, we can see that these three cases amongst all the others were turning points in history, and if these events never occurred, who knows what our nation would be like today. As individuals we often forget or have the wrong perception of what has happened in both history and current events. The more knowledge we have on these issues the more we will be able to understand the work we live in.

The Presidency

Carllene Brooks
April 24, 2016
Professor Murdaco
Politics



Task: Summarize the lecture at hand



            John F. Kennedy once said " My fellow Americans , ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This is such a powerful statement because he is asking us as Americans how we can make this country a better place. There are many answers to his general statement. In this lecture we were asked to look at a number of speeches regarding the many different presidents we have had during the recent years.
         To begin with, John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address( 1961), was a speech that was given not to change the way Americans perceive the country; however it was more of a motivational speech in my opinion. He wanted to motivate Americans to come together in order to make this country a better place. He urged us to recognize the damage that was done in the past, and try and find ways to become better and not make the same mistakes.  He opens up his speech by saying that he has asked everyone to join him today so that they can celebrate their freedom as well as a renewal of change. I feel that as President JFK really took the time to understand his country and find ways to improve the many corrupt things that were going on during these times. One close observation I made while reading was how he states that the world is now different; not only that but he also says that man holds power in his own hands and not held in the hands of rate superior.  His speech allowed him to gain the opportunity to introduce his similar vision of government in a clear manner. Throughout his speech he goes on by making valid points and making commitments and promises on how he is going to make this country a better place. One statement he made which resonated with me was how he emphasizes the people who are less fortunate than us. These people live in huts and villages, we as a nation as well as individuals  should help them help themselves. His concept on running an efficient nation/ country is how we can come together and try to find ways to help people in poverty. We shouldn't just turn our backs on them and have them suffer; if we have the tools and necessities to help them, then we should do so. JFK isn't saying this to get press or more votes or more supporters, he is saying this because its the right thing to do.
      Meanwhile,  in both Ronald Reagan's State of the Union and his 1st Inaugural Address he emphasizes America's past mistakes and how in today's society we should work on ways to not repeat history. In his 1st speech, he really elaborates on the issues America faced in it's past. For example: inflation. tax issues, and the government's overspending problems. Reagan argued that the government, ( isn't the solution) to the problems America has faced during these times. Not only does Reagan address the faults that the government is facing, he strongly believes that the government must work alongside and not over the very people who gave them power in order to restore America to its original greatness.  Whereas in the State of the Union speech, he kind of piggyback's off of the same ideas he made during his 1st address. The address elaborates on the conditions of our nation, as well as allow the President to outline his legislative agenda. The main idea of this speech was to bring awareness to the rules in Article II, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This requires the President to periodically give Congress information on the " State of the Union".
     Lastly, our most recent President Barack Obama, has made a handful of speeches to our nation. Most of his speeches are aimed to talk about the issues we are facing today ( like many of our Presidents).  The two speeches that caught my attention were his "Speech on Race; A More Perfect Union". and his 2008 Inaugural Speech. Prior to reading his Speech on Race; I used my context clues and hypothesized that the main idea of his speech was to find ways on how we as a country can come together and form the " perfect union".  The main purpose of his speech was to address the issues of racial tensions, white privileged and the race and inequality that seems to be persistent throughout the United States.  One point that he made in his speech was " black anger" and " white resentment". This probably means that Blacks are angry that we are still being treated as the minority and that we are looked at as the lesser value. Whereas the whites resent the blacks who actually make something out of themselves as well as prove statistics wrong. One important thing to note is that he highlighted the tension between the concept of equal citizenship and freedom expressed in the Constitution. He briefly touched on the history of slavery and connected both the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement into his own personal goals in his campaign. Lastly another point I would like to touch on is how he spoke about the comments made by his former pastor; Jeremiah Wright. Even though he and Obama have a personal relationship, Obama does not support his wrong doings and he does make his audience aware that what Wright said was wrong and how he offended both the white and black communities.  Furthermore, in Obama's Inaugural Speech, his main points addressed same sex marriage as well as climate change. By Obama speaking on same sex marriage it really opened a lot of doors because no other Presidential candidate soon to be President has even thought of speaking on this issue.

Congress

Carllene Brooks
April 23, 2016
Professor Murdaco
Politics




Task: Summarize the main points of the article
 

          To begin with, we were asked to analyze the speeches or analyzations of Christopher Ingraham. In his first article" America's Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts", he talks about the concept of gerrymandering and how it affects certain districts. Gerrymandering is when political parties redraw district boundaries to give themselves an electoral advantages. My opinion of this article is that it is very informative to those who are unfamiliar with the gerrymandering process such as myself. This process is said to help people stay on the safe side when trying to secure votes. According to the article it states that gerrymandering is supposed to help people stay on the safe side. Not only do they stay on the safe side, it's supposed to give your opponents a small number of safe seats ,while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that aren't safe. But it still allows you to win comfortably. By Ingraham giving pictorial examples and diagrams, it really gives you a visual eye/ idea on how gerrymandering in certain districts occur.
      In like manner, the two points that really caught my interest are points #1 and #6.  The main idea of the first point is that gerrymandering is not to draw yourself a safe seat; but its supposed to put your opponents in safe seats by cramming all of their supporters into a small number of districts. This allows you to not only allows you to cram your supporters, but you have the opportunity to spread your own supported over a larger number of districts. Whereas in the sixth point, the main idea is that gerrymandering is easier to get away with in more densely- populated areas. This means that the more diverse your community is then you are more likely to have a little "leeway" in drawing their districts.
    In Ingraham's follow up article " What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like"' he is trying to answer the pondering question of how beneficial and effective gerrymandering actually is. In order to better explain his thesis or idea he went along and gathered data from the early 1950s. When looking at this data you can see that gerrymandering  has consumed the likes of many different states. The most increasingly high numbers of gerrymandering have occurred in Pennslyvania, Ohio and Illinois. By having a certain amount of changes within these states, it allows the other states to better control the extent of gerrymandering.
    In closing, we can see that the topic of gerrymandering has become increasingly important when trying to secure a certain amount of wins in certain districts. Prior to reading these two articles, I had no knowledge of what gerrymandering was and how it helps people in the race better their chances in the race.



         

Equal Rights; Frederick Douglass and T.H Marshall

Carllene Brooks
March 29, 2016
Professor Murdaco
Politics



   Frederick Douglass once said " Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." This quote is 100 percent true. I say this because if one obtains the necessary knowledge needed in order to belong to society. then they shouldn't be characterized to be slaves ( particularly African Americans).  To begin with, in Frederick Douglass' speech " What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" he expresses his thoughts and opinions on the scrutiny and treatment that the black population has endured. The first half of his speech focuses on the benefits and contributions that the founding fathers did for their country. He then goes on to to express the importance of the condemnation of the attitude of American society toward slavery. In my perspective, I believe that the issue of slavery during these times weren't really of relevance because it was mainly directed towards the black minority. Blacks were the underdogs as well as the minority. Many people believed that all we were good for was picking cotton and taking orders from the "white man".  So I feel that by Frederick Douglass obtaining the ability to read, he really proved that blacks are capable of learning and making a name for themselves. The one part of the speech that resonated for me was in the very beginning in the opening line. " Mr. President, Friends, and Fellow Citizens". I think that this statement suggests that the president who Douglass is addressing is the president of anti- slavery. In essence this does make sense because his main focus was to bring awareness to the treatment of African Americans in society. His main priority was not only to stress the importance of slavery, but to also advocate for equal justice, rights, and citizenship for blacks. Keep in mind that when Douglass gave his speech the year was 1852; so he often refers to the nation as " like a young child, that is still impressionable and capable for positive change".
      Without delay, one argument that I picked up on while reading Douglass' speech was his passion for freeing slaves. He points out that in 1852, people consider abolitionism a dangerous and subversive political stance. He predicts that in the future generations to come, that anti- slavery will eventually become reasonable and hopefully abolished.  Another purpose of the speech was to urge everyone to continue their works and involvement on who bought freedom and democracy to this land we call home. One rhetorical question that Douglass asks during his speech was " Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us ( blacks)?". This is another question that resonates with me because it speaks not only for the conditions that were going on throughout the 18th century back then, but it also applies to even the present society we live in today. The Declaration was created in order to give freedom to "all" that live in society. These laws apply to everyone who lives in our nation; regardless of your color, gender, or ethnicity.  The Fourth of July for some can be perceived as the " white man's" holiday. He strongly feels that if a black man celebrates this freedom from oppression and tyranny, it is truly a mockery to our race as well as the black community. One quote form his speech that really emphasizes the arguments against slavery was " Your 4th July is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license ( for enslaving blacks) ... your shouted of liberty and equality hollow mockery". This quote states that there is no person on Earth who would be in favor of becoming a slave himself. He feels that the fact that we celebrate Fourth of July, it was a way for the white man to feel that he has won and has obtained all the power he needs to control us black folk.  This holiday is more of an "excuse" on bragging about the liberty and prosperity that the white man has obtained. He goes on to compare the treatment of slaves to that of animals. He points out the incident in Baltimore where slaves were transported in chains onto ships due to the anti-slavery issues. Slavery brutality and animal brutality are the same in a sense that they are both being abused and deprived of their natural rights of them being animals and of them being citizens on the United States. The last point that I would like to emphasize is when he talks about the American Declaration of Independence. The one important statement in the declaration is " all men are created equal". This also implies to men of different colors, men of different races, and men of different genders. Douglass' speech was and will always be a lasting legacy in history; because he was one of the first African Americans to passionately speak on the hardships slaves go through and on ways on how we as a nation should try to change it.
    Another speech that was influential was T.H Marshall's Citizenship and Social Class (1949). I think the main focus of the speech was that the social responsibilites the state has ( America) to its citizens. To summarize his speech in a few short sentences would be that this speech was a stepping stone for America learning how to accept responsibility for their actions. I think the three major points in his speech that are important are (1.) The lessening of the income gap ( 2.)The great extension of the area of common culture and common experience ( 3.)An enlargement of citizenship and more rights granted to these citizens. I think these three points are crucial to understand when speaking about out nation.
      In closing we can see that these three individuals gave speeches that were influential and beneficial to this developing nation. Granted at the times these speeches were given, our nation wasn't exactly " the ideal" place to live in. IF these people never written or gave these speeches, then who knows what our country would've developed into.

Henry David Thoreau, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Frederick Douglass

Carllene Brooks
March 18, 2016
Professor M
Politics


Task: Summarize the three articles



         Paul Wellstone once said, " Politics is not about power". This quote means that when studying the art of politics, it doesn't mean you are trying to learn the ropes of obtaining the most power. Politics in my opinion is a term used when someone is trying to understand the ropes of trying to make the government as well as our nation a better place. If I had to rephrase the quote I would say politics is about understanding the government and the rules that apply to it.
     To begin with, for this weeks blog, we read three different articles from three different historical figures. The first article was from Henry David Thoreau called " Civil Disobedience, 1848". In his speech he proposed that one's conscience should focus over the way the laws are being dictated. He goes on to criticize Americans social institutions and their polices. Throughout his speech Thoreau addresses some valid points that many politicians and government officials would often ignore. For example: He argued that the government rarely proves itself useful and that it derives its power from the majority because they aren't the strongest group. This statement goes for how today's government is run as well. Whenever an issue arises, the government is sometimes hesitant on fixing the problems ( depending on the severity of the problem). Thoreau is a strong believer in honesty and on effective ways of helping American citizens. He feels that when a government is not honest, the people should refuse to follow the law and distance themselves from the government in general. I think Thoreau's ideas are similar to that of some of the candidates in the presidential race. Primarily similar to the ideas of Donald Trump. Trump is a strong believer in eliminating negativity and focusing on how we as a nation can come to together and be more self sufficient and not worry about irrelevant factors.  One statement that Thoreau resonated with me was " A person is not obligated to devote his life to eliminating evils from the world, but he is obligated not to participate in such evil". ( www.sparknotes.com) Basically Thoreau is saying that no man or woman for that matter is obligated to devote their energy to the corruptness or evils that are occurring around the world. However he goes on to say that we have the choice on whether or not we want to participate in such evil behaviors.  Not only does he propose that we aren't obligated to participate in such evils, but he also dissociates himself from the government and refused to participate in his institutions. This means that he removes himself from a situation if he feels that the government is up to no good.
     Meanwhile, in Elizabeth Cady Stanton's " Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, 1848",  was created around the same time as the women's rights convention. Stanton's rendition of he Declaration was similar to the ideas of the original American Declaration of Independence. The sentiments demanded equality with men before the law in education and employment. Her speech was geared toward men allowing women the equality rights for obtaining employment opportunities as well as educational. According to www.infoplease.com, their were two statements  that really caught my attention. The first statement was " He denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her". This statement is solely focused on equal educational opportunities for women.  During the 18th century women weren't allowed to continue their education; due to the fact that the school district was predominately run by men. However eventually with the publishing of Stanton's speech, the issue was later resolved.  The solution was " That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.  This means that human rights was based on your gender. Being male or female during these times really made a difference as far as equality in employment, education, as well as social status.
     In like manner, the last speech that we analyzed was Frederick Douglass' " A Lecture on the Anti- S;avery Movement 1855." This speech was an inspiring story because he really went through a lot of hardships during his youthful life. When he escaped slavey, he became one of the leaders of the anti slavery movement. His main goal in his speech was to obtain the natural rights for citizens to be equal and to put an end to racial inequality. One thing that many did't know was that Douglass' gave his anti slavery speech to a group of women. During this time, many women in the north were working together to put an end to slavery. One step they took was by joining reform groups were they learned the knowledge of organizing political skills and establishing social networks. ( for example: protests, articles in the newspaper and giving speeches. )
    In closing, we can see that the three different perspectives seen in these speeches all relate to one thing: which is obtaining equality as a natural American citizen.

Public opinion

     When reading the article " Polls Got It Seriously Wrong in Michigan's Democratic Primary", I found it to be quite interesting due to the amount of statistical information that was presented. In this article they talk about the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The interesting thing about these two candidates is that they both have somewhat of a target audience. When I say target audience, I mean that Bernie Sanders is more likely to score big within the adolescent crowd, whereas Hillary Clinton is more closely linked to the young adult crowd as well as the middle aged crowd. According to the article, Hillary is a heavy favorite in Michigan state. She was given margins between 11 and 37 points over Sanders. Although Hillary had more points during their campaign, Sanders went out of his way and spent the most money on ads. While in Michigan, Sanders outspent Clinton. According to the article ( as well as data from Kantar Media), He spent $3.5 million to her $ 2.6 million, alongside that he made a heavier investment in the last week before the primary.
      In addition to the spike of points as well as who outspent who, when it comes to gender and ethnicity it really raises eyebrows in a sense. According to the article, it states that the results of the polls suggests that Sanders did indeed struggle to have any African American voters in the South. However the exit polls show that he won 30% of the state's black votes. On the other hand, Clinton had a 17 point lead and won 21% of the African American votes. And Sanders only managed to capture 19% African American votes. This does seem to be a slight improvement in the amount of African American votes that Sanders has received. As we know Sanders target audience ranges from ages 18-29 year olds. This is due to the things that he is promising and also the talks of either lowering college tuition or not having it at all. According to NBC/ Wall Street the polls state that the 18-29 age group make up 15% of the electorate.